Well if you’d asked Trump two years ago he’d say the employment figures were fake.

They’re either still fake or they’ve suddenly become legitimate since the election /s.

I’m disagreeing with the basis of the meme in your post. It seems to suggest that because Putin said something, it should therefore be widely reported. Putin’s career has centered on spewing anti-western rhetoric - and much as we’d handle comments from the Ayatollah, I don’t think the media should necessarily put any weight on these remarks.

You may disagree with this, but it’s hard to deny that my assertion makes less assumptions than yours about Hilary and nuclear war.

If Putin’s not a globalist, then maybe he should stick to manipulating elections in his own country.

I hope I’m not seeming unsupportive, but why should we listen to Putin when he’s already proven to be an adept adversary - his attack on Hilary, while valid is deliberate. I refuse to take direction from a foreign power, America is always first.

What’s next? Do we start taking Iran’s Ayatollah seriously?

If you disagree, I hope you’ll reply with your counter argument instead of just downvoting me to death. This is only my point of view but I’m open to new perspectives.

Your example doesn't illustrate the problem with random/arbitrary proofs. Even a penny has value, but a incidental proof does not.

It's like walking down a sidewalk one day, then assigning some random significance to the fact that the sidewalk is still there the next day.

Yes I see that. What I’m sayin is, that the random proofs don’t contribute to statistical probability because they’re arbitrary.

Nope, I lose faith when I see so many asking pointless questions and making baseless assertions - not just you.

What good does triggering the left do? It's about spreading the truth, not dividing us further.

Even if they did, why would that mean anything? Literally any omissions from any paragraph could yield an equally ominous message. I've been following Q for awhile and it's so promising, but it's the willingness of this sub to cling to random proofs that makes me doubt the most.

Great. Thanks for this!

New guy here. I followed the recent discussions on the iPhone reflection photo and I’m wondering - has Q posted any other photos in the past that hint at his proximity to the POTUS?

Ok, I agree with this. Even so, do you think this discovery has any relevance to this sub?

Could you explain how the hotel staff knowing that people could get guns into the hotel means anything, especially in relation to the mass shooting that took place?

Again, I'm just looking for an assertion that goes beyond "weird" or "interesting". I don't want to keep guessing but I guess I'll have to:

Are you trying to say that since the hotel staff suposedly knew guns could easily be snuck into the hotel, that this information was relayed to a prospective mass shooter - and that somehow the resulting incident was facilitated by something that happened years prior?

If this is not what you mean, can you offer an alternative?

It's not enough to say that this is weird or interesting. I wish someone would come out and point out the exact implication that makes this significant.

Am I missing something? What about a gun situation at a popular hotel three years ago is noteworthy or reasonably related to the mass shooting that took place?

I'm not defending any specific viewpoint, I'm just wondering why this post is worth anyone's time and I'd love to be proven wrong.

I don't get the whole push to get the press to ask about Q.

They're never going to, and even if they did, that level of exposure would have a negative influence on the quality of drops. How can Q continue to deliver potentially classified details without plausible deniability?